Electric universe theories here.

Tim Thompson · Jul 18, 2009

Stop that plasma!

Michael Mozina said:
Blocking the flow of plasma over an area the size of the Earth however is no small feat. What kind of "magnetic field" does something like that?

Heavens to mergatroid, I thought you knew something about electromagnetism! How about any magnetic field!. When did charged particles start moving perpendicular to any magnetic field? You never heard of the Lorentz force? vxB? The plasma is stopped "cold" over any spatial scale you can imagine, including that of the entire galaxy.

Michael Mozina said:
Why are sunspots always related to coronal loop activity if the mass flows to block plasma flows are located under the photosphere?

Because the action is all above the sunspots, not below.

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

Ziggurat said:
I don't care what you think is going on, there is a 6000K layer of the sun which is radiating like a blackbody.

I don't really care what you think is going on, but the surface of the photosphere is not a "black body". You might suggest such a thing about *THE WHOLE SUN*, but the photosphere is physically incapable of acting like a "black body". It's made of extremely light neon plasma.

We can SEE that.

All you see is white light from a mostly NEON photosphere. That's all you see.

And that radiation will go in all directions.

No, it moves AWAY FROM the surface TOWARD the heliosphere. Heat from a rock in a river will not flow upstream very far before being picked up and carried downstream by a moving water molecule.

Radiation does not "flow".

No, but particles flow and carry heat with them.

And even if the source of the radiation is flowing outwards, the radiation itself will travel in all directions.

So what? I'm sure the heat from a hot rock will travel in all direction in the stream. The water in the stream (in this case charged particles) will pick up and carry that heat downstream. If we measure the temperature of the water a mile upstream from my hot rock, it's not going to have the slightest effect on the temperature of the water upstream.

Once again, I DON'T CARE what layer is doing it.

You should care and you must care if you expect to comprehend the actual physics involved in this process. Slapping math to an unrelated physical design is pointless.

Whatever it is that's radiating as a 6000 K blackbody, it sure as hell isn't underneath your solid layer.

You are right, it is the particles in the atmosphere released (and contained) in the z-pinch processes that emit most of the "heat" we experience.

And it's going to radiate both outwards and inwards.

Sure, some heat will radiate inwards, but just like my water in the stream analogy, so what? The outbound particles will pick out that heat and transfer it to the heliosphere eventually.

What we see is a 6000 K blackbody spectrum.

So what? That is the *AVERAGED* temperature that relates to many atmospheric layers all radiating at different temperatures as well as the heat contained in the outbound particle flow. It's not coming from ONE thing, or ONE place.

That IS the "white light" that we see.

So what? Neon bulbs often emit white light. So what? Of course all layers emit photons and many of them fall into the visible spectrum. What we see in the full spectrum is a combination of a lot of emissions points.

You aren't under the delusion that "white light" is a specific frequency, are you?

Nope.

No, Michael. I've been very explicit about this: I make no assumptions about where exactly this blackbody spectrum is coming from.

Yes you did. You tacked it to the photosphere. It has nothing (well little) to do with the surface of the photosphere.

I don't care if you want to attribute it to something under the photosphere or not: it's still coming from somewhere.

Great. Get it through your head that the coronal loops originate under the photosphere in Birkeland's model and they emit the bulk of the "heat" you feel when you stand in the sunshine. The surface emits heat too of course, as do all the plasma layers.

And whatever it is that's giving off 6000 K blackbody outwards is also going to be giving off 6000 K blackbody radiation inwards.

You're missing the point. The particle flow is all *OUTBOUND*. If there was no particle flow your argument would have merit. Because the flow is constant and always outbound, your argument has no merit at all. Just like the water molecules pick up heat and carry it downstream, so too, the plasma particles moving in the outbound direction pick up heat and carry it away from the sun.

That's not an assumption, that's the way blackbody radiation works.

Black body theory is almost unrelated to solar theory. It's a handy oversimplification in some instances, but you can't use it to make your arguments, particularly in a Birkeland solar model. If, and only if, there was no solar wind, your argument would in fact have merit. Because the flow of particles is constant and outbound, your argument is moot.

DeiRenDopa · Jul 18, 2009

Ziggurat said:
I[...]

No, Michael. I've been very explicit about this: I make no assumptions about where exactly this blackbody spectrum is coming from. I don't care if you want to attribute it to something under the photosphere or not: it's still coming from somewhere. And whatever it is that's giving off 6000 K blackbody outwards is also going to be giving off 6000 K blackbody radiation inwards. That's not an assumption, that's the way blackbody radiation works.

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Heavens to mergatroid, I thought you knew something about electromagnetism! How about any magnetic field!. When did charged particles start moving perpendicular to any magnetic field? You never heard of the Lorentz force? vxB? The plasma is stopped "cold" over any spatial scale you can imagine, including that of the entire galaxy.

How exactly did you intend to create a magnetic field the size of Earth? Why wouldn't "heat" cross that barrier even if you figured out a way to create such a thing?

Because the action is all above the sunspots, not below.

I guess you haven't seen the DVD? When you get it to a format you can watch, freeze the frame at around 30 minutes and 4 seconds. You will observe the coronal loop coming up through the photosphere and it "lights up" the photosphere at the base of the loops. There is no doubt from this image (and many other by the way including the two others I noted) that the loops originate *UNDER*, not above the photosphere. As tsenfem has noted, Alfven's model of a loop carried current throughout the loop. It would "light up" everywhere, including under the photosphere in Alfven's model. I personally prefer Birkeland's model, but the physics related to MHD theory applies to either a plasma or solid surface model. The loop is visible in white light in that image I cited, and the photosphere is "lit up" along the both sides of the loops. The later item I cited will demonstrate that matter is moving UP AND AWAY from the photosphere during the flare. If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Why are you even here? You absolutely *refuse* to stand up and show a little a backbone and scientifically explain even two satellite images. You're afraid. You can't handle the images, so you're bashing he messenger. Do you really think this technique has any effect on me personally, or that it makes you "look good" somehow? If so, you're only fooling yourself. If you want to impress me and the readers, lets hear you explain the images.

Ziggurat · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I don't really care what you think is going on, but the surface of the photosphere is not a "black body".

Something on the sun sure as hell is, and whatever it is, it's above your solid surface. Unless you think your solid surface is at 6000 K. I've repeatedly stated that for the current argument, it makes no difference if it's the photosphere or not. Your repeated insistence that it's not the photosphere is a rather pathetic attempt to avoid addressing the fact that this 6000 K source will heat up your solid layer to at least as hot.

All you see is white light from a mostly NEON photosphere. That's all you see.

We see an entire 6000 K blackbody spectrum. I don't care where it comes from, but it's source is at 6000 K, and radiating as a blackbody.

No, but particles flow and carry heat with them.

Which is why I did those calculations. Calculations which you have yet to address. You claim I'm wrong, but you can't provide what you think are correct numbers for any of it.

So what? I'm sure the heat from a rock will travel in all direction in the stream. The water in the stream (in this case charged particles) will carry that heat downstream. If we measure the temperature of the water a mile upstream from my rock, it's not going to have the slightest effect on the temperature of the water upstream.

Provided we have enough water to do this. Which, again, was the point of my calculations: your mass flow cannot possibly do what you're claiming it does. There's just far too much heat involved.

You should care and you must care if you expect to comprehend the actual physics involved in this process.

Oh, but I'm not dealing with all the physics involved. I'm only dealing with the basic thermodynamics: are your proposed temperature differentials possible? And for that, many of the details (including the ones you keep trying to bring up) ARE irrelevant. Just like the atmospheric composition of the earth is irrelevant to its orbital trajectory around the sun.

Slapping math to an unrelated physical design is pointless.

Except that the math I've done is rather directly related to the physics in question. And you have been able to produce NO alternative numbers for any of the quantities involved. Why is that, Michael? Why have you wasted so much of your life on a "physics" theory that you can't quantify on even the most basic level? It's kind of sad, when you stop and think about it.

Sure, some heat will radiate inwards, but just like my water in the stream analogy, so what? The outbound particles will pick out that heat and transfer it to the heliosphere eventually.

Which is the model I did my calculations for. And what did I find? The numbers don't work out, not by many orders of magnitude. Which means that the outbound particles CANNOT do what you require them to do.

So what? That is the *AVERAGED* temperature that relates to many atmospheric layers all radiating at different temperatures as well as the heat contained in the outbound particle flow. It's not coming from ONE thing, or ONE place.

It doesn't matter if it's averaged or not, and it doesn't matter if it's coming from one layer or not. It's still what your solid surface will be subjected to. It's still the power that your solid surface will need to somehow remove in order to avoid heating up.

Yes you did. You tacked it to the photosphere. It has nothing (well little) to do with the surface of the photosphere.

No I didn't. I've repeatedly and explicitly stated that I don't care what layer you want to attribute it to. It's still there, and it will still act to heat up your solid layer.

You're missing the point. The particle flow is all *OUTBOUND*

I assumed that when I did my calculations.

Just like the water molecules pick up heat and carry it downstream, so too, the plasma particles moving in the outbound directly pick up heat and carry it away from the sun.

Won't stop heat transfer if there isn't enough water. And as my calculations demonstrate, there isn't.

BB theory is almost unrelated to solar theory. It's a handy oversimplification in some instances, but you can't use it to make your arguments, particularly in a Birkeland solar model.

Yes, I can. Why? Because the sun gives off a blackbody spectrum. If it gave off a highly non-blackbody spectrum, you might have a point. But it doesn't. Therefore, you don't.

If, and only if, there was no solar wind, your argument would in fact have merit.

I did my first calculation based on the premise that the solar wind WAS the driver for your model. Did you somehow miss that? Because your response doesn't indicate that you actually understood any of my post.

Because the flow of particles is constant and outbound, your argument is moot.

The entire point of those calculations was to see what would happen if a constant flow of particles was carrying away heat to keep your solid surface cool. And you've got... no answer. No alternative set of numbers. No different way of doing the calculation. Instead, you irrationally claim I'm wrong because I'm not considering the exact thing those calculations were done to quantify.

Dancing David · Jul 18, 2009

MM, you just lost it again. Ziggy, while often abrupt, asked you pertinent questions, you are just getting hand wavy.

Now please explain how the layer that emits most of the visible light from the sun does not radiate inwards.

This is a huge problem for you, and the fact that you just use capital letters to address it does not help.

Where in you laboratory science does this effect occur, where you can demonstrate that:
1. Whatever layer it is that is radiating the visible light of the sun, it is not 6,000 degrees?
2. That the EM radiation in photons in only going to radiate in one direction?
3. That the temperature of the photosphere in not 6,000 degrees, or if so why does it not radiate exclusively in the spectral line of Neon?
4. Barring that, then answer Ziggy's question, how many electrons are going to flow off the 'iron shell' to keep it from absorbing the radiation of the layer at 6,000 degrees.

See, here is the problem with your theory and all the other strange electric sun theories, they fall down and go boom...

You still haven't explained how your flow between the sun and the heliosphere is going to have a mix of protons and electrons.
There is no evidence of the heliosphere having the charge needed, there is no evidence of the sun having the charge needed.
You haven't a mechanism for how the 'iron shell' of the sun is going to radiate this huge amount of electrons but still not heat to the level of vaporization.
Now you want to violate all the laboratory physics you claim to follow, where on earth can you show an experiment where a solid iron plate radiates electrons away fast enough to keep it from absorbing IR and other photons?

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

Dancing David said:
MM, you just lost it again. Ziggy, while often abrupt, asked you pertinent questions, you are just getting hand wavy.

It is not "handwavy" to note that the solar wind flows *outbound*, and that there is constant movement of plasma away from the sun. It is a physical fact.

Now please explain how the layer that emits most of the visible light from the sun does not radiate inwards.

The layer of the sun that emits the most visible light is the neon layer. I'm sure it radiates inward as well as outward, but the particle flow from the surface is constantly aimed away from the surface. The surface is a cathode and it emits charged particles on a continuous basis. The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

This is a huge problem for you, and the fact that you just use capital letters to address it does not help.

It might be a huge problem were it not for that solar wind you seem to be ignoring.

Where in you laboratory science does this effect occur, where you can demonstrate that:

Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

The particle flow from the photosphere may in fact be 6000K, but that is unrelated to the color of the photosphere.

1. Whatever layer it is that is radiating the visible light of the sun, it is not 6,000 degrees?

That depends I suppose on what your measuring. If you look at the AVERAGE temperature of the particles coming out of the surface of the photosphere (including electrons and protons), sure it's 6000 K.

2. That the EM radiation in photons in only going to radiate in one direction?

No, they will radiate in all directions like any photon but like any photon it can be *ABSORBED* by any atom or any ion or any molecule it encounters.

3. That the temperature of the photosphere in not 6,000 degrees, or if so why does it not radiate exclusively in the spectral line of Neon?

Well, the photosphere is full of "impurities" and it's not the only thing emitting photons in the visible spectrum. Lots of atoms contribute to the total visible spectrum, not simply the neon layer. It however does in fact "spew" the most light in the visible spectrum.

4. Barring that, then answer Ziggy's question, how many electrons are going to flow off the 'iron shell' to keep it from absorbing the radiation of the layer at 6,000 degrees.

I don't know. I do know that electrons are not the only thing flowing from the sun and that many atoms and ions are capable of absorbing photons in the infrared range.

See, here is the problem with your theory and all the other strange electric sun theories, they fall down and go boom...

You still haven't explained how your flow between the sun and the heliosphere is going to have a mix of protons and electrons.

Does any current carrying thread in plasma (like an ordinary plasma ball) contain *ONLY* electrons?

There is no evidence of the heliosphere having the charge needed,

Of course there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles toward it.

there is no evidence of the sun having the charge needed.

Yes there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles away from it.

You haven't a mechanism for how the 'iron shell' of the sun is going to radiate this huge amount of electrons

Well, you're right that I haven't settled on *ONE* possible scenario, but fusion and fission could easily produce the necessary excess of protons and electrons.

but still not heat to the level of vaporization.

Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.

Now you want to violate all the laboratory physics you claim to follow, where on earth can you show an experiment where a solid iron plate radiates electrons away fast enough to keep it from absorbing IR and other photons?

About the best I might do right now is cite Birkeland's work. His metallic sphere emitted electrons and other ions and produced similar if not identical "processes" in the atmosphere of the sphere. It produced "coronal loops", "jets", high speed solar wind in one direction and all the other key observations we see in solar images.

GeeMack · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:

You know, this is turning out to be a repeat of the 'discussion' on the Casimir effect ... great wodges of obfuscation, hand-waving, word salad, misdirection, etc, etc, etc by MM ... but no answers to simple, straight-forward back-of-the-envelope calculations (indeed, even the refusal to acknowledge the existence of such calculations is cannily familiar).

Click to expand...

Why are you even here? You absolutely *refuse* to stand up and show a little a backbone and scientifically explain even two satellite images. You're afraid. You can't handle the images, so you're bashing he messenger. Do you really think this technique has any effect on me personally, or that it makes you "look good" somehow? If so, you're only fooling yourself. If you want to impress me and the readers, lets hear you explain the images.

Not to speak for DeiRenDopa, but he/she seems to understand the construction of running difference images, has said so, appears to realize you're wrong, and looks to be willing to leave you playing with yourself in the mud on that issue. His/her position for many, many posts now is that you have not offered, and probably will not offer a single iota of quantitative support for your delusion. All you've got is your loud mouth claim that it is true because it is true. Then you wave a few pictures around and say, "See! See! If you stare at these long enough you'll see it, too!" That's not how sane people approach science, Michael. That's how you approach it.

The images have been explained by everyone except you, Michael. Once more, the fact that you intentionally ignore everyone's explanations means you are, by definition, ignorant. And the fact that nearly everyone has explained the images, or accepted the explanations provided by me and others, yet you keep insisting they haven't makes you, by definition, a liar. Michael, you are an ignorant liar. And that is the thing that isn't getting past anyone reading this.

Now where was that experiment that shows how you can see something in a difference graph that was something like 10000 kilometers or more away from the location of the data used to create the graph? Oh, that's right. There is no such experiment. Someone would have to be crazy to think they could do that, wouldn't they, Michael?

GeeMack · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.

That running difference image you are unable to explain in detail, right down to the pixel, like everyone else has, like I have so many times? Okay.

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

GeeMack said:
Not to speak for DeiRenDopa,.....

But you're going to do it anyway?

but he/she seems to understand the construction of running difference images,

How would any of us know that? When has she ever said that or attempted to explain the images in any detail? Never. She's afraid to even discuss them and has avoided the actual images like the plague for over four years. Let's hearr her explain something useful about the image, then we'll know if she really understands anything at all about RD images. All we know at the moment is she is definitely afraid to stick her neck out and offer anything even remotely resembling an explanation for these images.

GeeMack · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How would any of us know that? When has she ever said that or attempted to explain the images in any detail? Never. She's afraid to even discuss them and has avoided the actual images like the plague for over four years. Let's here he explain something useful about the image, then we'll know if she really understands anything. All we know at the moment is she is afraid to stick her neck out and offer anything even remotely resembling an explanation for these images.

Liar.

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

GeeMack said:
That running difference image you are unable to explain in detail, right down to the pixel, like everyone else has, like I have so many times? Okay.

Liar. You mentioned *NO* cause/effect relationships, *NO* specific frame, *NO* specific pixel, and *NO* specific observation in that image. You're a sleaze and a liar.

GeeMack · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Liar. You mentioned *NO* cause/effect relationships, *NO* specific frame, *NO* specific pixel, and *NO* specific observation in that image. You're a sleaze and a liar.

First, I explained every single pixel. Second, you have never explained even one. Your turn, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is?

Oh, and the crybaby tantrums are getting old. Knock it off, will ya?

Michael Mozina · Jul 18, 2009

GeeMack said:
First, I explained every single pixel.

No, the only accurate thing you actually explained was the math. Everything else you have said has been false.

Second, you have never explained even one. Your turn, Michael. Why is each pixel the color that it is?

Oh don't worry, I'll provide you with a link when I'm ready. I've been dragging my feet, waiting to see if any of you have any real explanations of your own to offer before I put up a page to let you pick on. Thus far, the whole lot of you look pathetic. You're going to make me look *amazing* at this rate, and I don't even profess to be significantly "better than average" for anyone who's actually studied the RD imaging process. You guys and gals utterly *SUCK* at satellite image analysis. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? RD image credibility? What credibility?

GeeMack · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No, the only accurate thing you actually explained was the math. Everything else you have said has been false.

After all, a running difference image is just a graphical representation of a series of very simple mathematical computations. (Subtraction, Michael. Don't trouble yourself. It's beyond your ability.) Explaining the math pretty much wraps it up.

And you haven't actually refuted anything I've said, well, other than with your tantrums and incessant whining. Why don't you ask some real scientists and let us know if they think hollering and complaining counts as refuting.

Oh don't worry, I'll provide you with a link when I'm ready. I've been dragging my feet, waiting to see if any of you have any real explanations of your own to offer before I put up a page to let you pick on. Thus far, the whole lot of you look pathetic. You're going to make me look *amazing* at this rate, and I don't even profess to be significantly "better than average" for anyone who's actually studied the RD imaging process. You guys and gals utterly *SUCK* at satellite image analysis. Flying stuff? What flying stuff? RD image credibility? What credibility?

Oh, like over at SFN when you said you were going to "shine" in your explanation? That was over three years ago and you totally pussied out over there. Shine? Not even a flicker.

It only took me a paragraph or two to explain why every single pixel is the color that it is. And my explanation exactly matched Neal Hurlburt's. If you recall, he's the fellow who is responsible for designing and implementing the TRACE program, acquiring and analyzing the data, creating the images, and producing the difference graphs you hold so dear. When you get your explanation ready, why don't you run it past Dr. Hurlburt to see if he agrees with yours, Michael, like he agrees with mine. That is if they don't still have you on their spam filter at LMSAL so they don't have to get email from you babbling on about your crackpot nonsense.

Now where is that experiment of yours, done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically supported, physically consistent, objective so that others can repeat it and come to the same conclusion as you have, that shows how you can see something below a few thousand kilometers of opaque plasma by looking at a difference graph made from data acquired several thousand kilometers above that plasma? You said yourself that all your ideas meet those standards. And having that super vision is one of your ideas, isn't it? Or are you abandoning that claim of being able to see through the photosphere by looking at a thermal analysis of the corona?

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How do you explain a sunspot being composed of plasma that is something like 3000 degrees cooler than the surface of the photosphere? Where does that lower temperature plasma come from and how in the world can it be *SO MUCH* cooler than the photosphere?

That sounds like a desperate attempt to derail.
Are you admitting that you cannot answer the question and so your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible iron surface/crust just vaporized?

First asked 17 July 2009
The Iron Sun model assumes that the iron crust exists 4800 km below the photosphere and so must have an unspecified temperature < 2000 K (otherwise it vaporizes). The top of the photosphere is at a temperature of 5777 K.......
How do you explain the increasing temperature with depth?

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2009

Hi MM. In reference to a statment that the Sun's photosphere emits a nearly black body spectrum you stated:

Michael Mozina said:
No, it's not. The whole thing radiates as a "black body" perhaps, but it isn't the photosphere that does that.

First asked 18 July 2009
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K (i.e. characteristic of matter at 5777 K )?

Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

The effective temperature, or blackbody temperature, of the Sun (5777 K) is the temperature a black body of the same size must have to yield the same total emissive power.
Drawn by myself. The solar spectrum is the WRC spectrum provided by M. Iqbal: An Introduction to Solar Radiation, Academic Press 1983, Table C1. The black body spectral irradiance has been computed from a black-body spectrum for T equal 5777 K and assuming a solid angle of 6.8e-5 steradian for the source (the solar disk).

Ziggurat · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

Yes, you keep saying that. But how much heat is it moving away from the sun? How much heat can it move away from the sun? Is that enough to keep your solid shell layer colder than the 6000 K part of the sun that we see? Why can't you answer such basic, fundamental questions about your own theory? Why was it left to me to do the calculations? And if you don't like my calculations, why don't you provide what you consider more accurate numbers? Like I said before, these aren't complex calculations. They're rather easy, in fact. But you consistently refuse to quantify any of your ideas.

You're a crank, Michael. You can get offended by that label all you want, but the one thing I know you won't do is prove the accusation wrong by quantifying your ideas.

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2009

Another little assertion from you:

Michael Mozina said:
Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

Are you seriously using a fluorescent light as evidence for a neon layer on the Sun?

You have obviously never looked at your office light. Have a look now. Note that it is not transparent. The light that you are seeing is not coming directly from the excited mercury atoms inside.
It is coming from the fluorescent coating on the tube.

The fundamental means for conversion of electrical energy into radiant energy in a fluorescent lamp relies on inelastic scattering of electrons. An incident electron collides with an atom in the gas. If the free electron has enough kinetic energy, it transfers energy to the atom's outer electron, causing that electron to temporarily jump up to a higher energy level. The collision is 'inelastic' because a loss of energy occurs.
This higher energy state is unstable, and the atom will emit an ultraviolet photon as the atom's electron reverts to a lower, more stable, energy level. Most of the photons that are released from the mercury atoms have wavelengths in the ultraviolet (UV) region of the spectrum predominantly at wavelengths of 253.7 nm and 185 nm. This is not visible to the human eye, so must be converted into visible light. This is done by making use of fluorescence. Ultraviolet photons are absorbed by electrons in the atoms of the lamp's fluorescent coating, causing a similar energy jump, then drop, with emission of a further photon. The photon that is emitted from this second interaction has a lower energy than the one that caused it. The chemicals that make up the phosphor are chosen so that these emitted photons are at wavelengths visible to the human eye. The difference in energy between the absorbed ultra-violet photon and the emitted visible light photon goes to heat up the phosphor coating.

There is also either argon or neon gas in your office light - contact the manufacturer to see which it is. It is an inert gas filler.

All the major features of fluorescent lighting were in place at the end of the 1920s. Decades of invention and development had provided the key components of fluorescent lamps: economically manufactured glass tubing, inert gases for filling the tubes, electrical ballasts, long-lasting electrodes, mercury vapor as a source of luminescence, effective means of producing a reliable electrical discharge, and fluorescent coatings that could be energized by ultraviolet light.

You are of course ignoring the physical fact that neon glows reddish-orange.

Reality Check · Jul 18, 2009

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles

I missed a good point from Ziggurat which deserves to be in my list of outstanding questions for MM.

MM: You seem to be suggesting that your iron surface/crust is kept cooler than the photosphere (and so does not vaporize) by heated particles being ejected from the Sun.
First asked 18 July 2009
Is my interpretation correct?
Is this your partial answer to
Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
(first asked 8 July 2009).
Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
If my interpretation is correct then what is wrong with Ziggurat's calculation below?
Remember that the photoshere (or your neon layer) is observed to be at a temperature of ~6000 K. It is radiating in all directions - including down to your iron surface/crust. That iron surface/crust needs to get rid of the heat somehow.

First asked 16 July 2009 by Ziggurat

Ziggurat said:
Which still tells us nothing about whether your iron shell idea can maintain a temperature far below the 6000 K layer of the sun that we see. I've asked you to quantify your ideas. You repeatedly refuse, even though such a task is easy. Very well, I shall endeavor to do so for you.

Let's say we've got mass being ejected from your solid surface. This mass is supposedly taking heat away with it - it therefore must be mostly on a one-way journey, or else it would take heat back with it from somewhere hotter, and so the solid shell would heat up. So how much mass can we lose on a continual basis? Well, let's ballpark this as being about the same amount of mass we get in the solar wind (that way we don't make the atmosphere above our solid shell any thicker or thinner). That's about 6.7 billion tons per hour, or about 1.7x10⁹ kg/s. Now the visible layer of the sun is radiating about 3.8x10²⁸ Watts outwards, but that layer will radiate inwards as well. In order to keep from heating up, we need to carry away the heat from this. But let's be generous. Let's suppose (with no evidence) that your solid surface is incredibly reflective, so that only 1% of the light is absorbed. Now we only need to carry away 3.8x10²⁶ Joules/sec. This means that each kg of mass that's being ejected must carry with it 2.2x10¹⁷ Joules. In other words, each kg must absorb more than twice its own rest mass in energy. Which, let's be frank, is an absolute absurdity.

OK, so let's see if we can fudge these numbers a bit. Let's suppose that we instead start with a more reasonable heat absorption, and then try to figure out the mass. The energy to ionize a hydrogen atom is 13.6 eV, which corresponds to 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Each proton and electron will act like an ideal gas molecule in the plasma state, so if we heat up from 0 to 6000 K (we can't heat up any more than that), we get 1.5⁷ J/kg. So the total is still about 1.3x10⁹ J/kg. Of course, I'm being incredibly generous here, since not all the gas would be ionized, and that's clearly the dominant contribution to the heat capacity at these temperatures. So again assuming only 1% absorption, how much mass do we need? 2.9x10¹⁷ kg/s. That's eight orders of magnitude larger than the solar wind. How long could the interior of the sun last losing this much mass? Well, the sun is about 2x10³⁰ kg, so that's about 6.9x10¹² seconds, or roughly 220,000 years. Again, absurd. Clearly that's far too large a mass flow to be sustainable.

The numbers don't work out, Michael. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. This took me maybe 10 minutes. Back of the envelope calculations. Easy to do, no fancy calculus, just simple multiplication, unit conversions, and easy-to-find input numbers. But you didn't do anything like this. You didn't test the fundamental parameters of your own theory to test whether it made even the slightest amount of sense. If you did, you would have realized how absurd it was. Now that you've had the calculations presented to you, what will you make of them? Will you realize your mistake? Or will you bury your head in the sand?

Tim Thompson · Jul 18, 2009

Sunspots and photospheric physics

Michael Mozina said:
How exactly did you intend to create a magnetic field the size of Earth?

Why is that a relevant question? The field is there. We call it a "sunspot". The magnetic field in a sunspot umbra is typically 3000 - 4000 Gauss. How the field got there is not at all relevant to the question of whether or not it can stop a plasma from flowing trough it.

Michael Mozina said:
Why wouldn't "heat" cross that barrier even if you figured out a way to create such a thing?

Radiant heat will cross the barrier, but convective heat cannot, because charged particles at such low energy cannot hope to flow perpendicular to a field anywhere near that strong. The fact that radiant heat does get in is why the sunspot umbra does not cool below about 3000 to 4000 Kelvins.

Michael Mozina said:
I guess you haven't seen the DVD?

No.

Michael Mozina said:
When you get it to a format you can watch, freeze the frame at around 30 minutes and 4 seconds. You will observe the coronal loop coming up through the photosphere and it "lights up" the photosphere at the base of the loops.

How do you know it is the photosphere you are looking at and not the chromosphere or transition region?

Michael Mozina said:
If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

How do you know that?

Michael Mozina said:
... but the photosphere is physically incapable of acting like a "black body". It's made of extremely light neon plasma.

How do you know it's neon?
What does "light" mean? What's the density? What's the optical depth?
If the optical depth is high enough, a plasma of any density at all will act like a blackbody. If you say otherwise, then you are simply pretending that physics does not exist.

Michael Mozina said:
No, it moves AWAY FROM the surface TOWARD the heliosphere. Heat from a rock in a river will not flow upstream very far before being picked up and carried downstream by a moving water molecule.

That's true only for convective or conductive heat, but it is never true for radiant heat. The photosphere will radiate thermally in all directions with a temperature dependent energy. It will radiate downward just as bright and just as energetic as it radiates upward. Anything below it will feel that heat. This is simple & unavoidable physics.

You're just making up hack stories now and pretending that there is no such thing as "physics". It doesn't work.

Dancing David · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It is not "handwavy" to note that the solar wind flows *outbound*, and that there is constant movement of plasma away from the sun. It is a physical fact.

It is hand wavy, you have not said at all:
1. How much flow there would need to be for this to happen, IE how much mass from where is going to do this.

That is exactly what Ziggy's question asked, and it is EXACTLY what you refuse to answer.
(The capitals are meant to be funny.

)

The layer of the sun that emits the most visible light is the neon layer. I'm sure it radiates inward as well as outward, but the particle flow from the surface is constantly aimed away from the surface. The surface is a cathode and it emits charged particles on a continuous basis. The solar wind is continuing to move heat away from the sun.

Where is a lab result that shows that?
Hmmm, Mr. Science Only Happens in a Laboratory?

Where is this, 'refrigeration of the cathode' evidence?

It might be a huge problem were it not for that solar wind you seem to be ignoring.

Nope, that is exactly the direct question you refuse to answer.

If you have a solar size shell or radiating material and then a layer of amterial moving away that protects the iron shell under the radiating layer, how much material has to move away from the iron shell to keep the heat from transferring?

And where is the lab data for this effect?

Well, I don't even have to leave my office to see that effect of a mostly neon plasma emitting white light. Both the bulb and the photosphere have metals and impurities of course, but the white light we observe from the photosphere is related to the elemental composition, not the temperature.

Yup, so the vast majority of the light should be in the spectral lines of He, it is not.

The particle flow from the photosphere may in fact be 6000K, but that is unrelated to the color of the photosphere.

Sure, so you are saying we can't see the radiation from the photosphere? Or that something is opaque above it?

That depends I suppose on what your measuring. If you look at the AVERAGE temperature of the particles coming out of the surface of the photosphere (including electrons and protons), sure it's 6000 K.

So that is the layer that is opaque to the one below it?

No, they will radiate in all directions like any photon but like any photon it can be *ABSORBED* by any atom or any ion or any molecule it encounters.

Nope, that is not the way absorbtion works either. Some larger partciles will abosrb most the of the photons, smaller ones will not. How about plasma?

Well, the photosphere is full of "impurities" and it's not the only thing emitting photons in the visible spectrum. Lots of atoms contribute to the total visible spectrum, not simply the neon layer. It however does in fact "spew" the most light in the visible spectrum.

that is a lot of impurities, how pure was that layer again?

I don't know. I do know that electrons are not the only thing flowing from the sun and that many atoms and ions are capable of absorbing photons in the infrared range.

So how many and how much mass from where is moving away to sheild the iron shell?
Answer Ziggy's question, please.

Does any current carrying thread in plasma (like an ordinary plasma ball) contain *ONLY* electrons?

Of course there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles toward it.

hand waving, no numbers, no measurements.

Yes there is, starting with the constant movement of charged particles away from it.

hand waving, no numbers, no measurements.

Well, you're right that I haven't settled on *ONE* possible scenario, but fusion and fission could easily produce the necessary excess of protons and electrons.

Where, how and when, and what keeps that from melting and vaporizing the iron shell?

Some of the crust does get "vaporized" by the current flow as evidenced by that "peeling" effect we observe in the RD image.

About the best I might do right now is cite Birkeland's work. His metallic sphere emitted electrons and other ions and produced similar if not identical "processes" in the atmosphere of the sphere.

was it 50% protons?
Did it cool off or get hot?

It produced "coronal loops", "jets", high speed solar wind in one direction and all the other key observations we see in solar images.
[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

So while you are avoiding direct questions:
Where is your lab data for electrons towing protons in a fifty/fifty mix?

tusenfem · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It does describe the flare. See section four.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

And still you cannot read, sigh!!!

Michael Mozina said:
So if loops come up through the photosphere we should be able to observe them, correct? Did you watch that DVD yet and specifically the three flares I cited?

First when the electrons are energetically enough, then we will see them clearly in Xrays. No I did not watch the DVD it is lying somewhere on my desk, and I do not expect to see anything new. It's like just pictures of the sun, you can hardly call that a "controlled experiment" so these DVDs may just show anything ...

Michael Mozina said:
Then the loops could and would emit light under the photosphere would they not?

No, why would they? Why would closure currents emit light? What do you have in mind?

Michael Mozina said:
He specifically called magnetic reconnection theory pseudoscience:

Yes and he was wrong, as a proponent of MHD he is not supposed to see reconnection, because reconnection cannot happen in MHD. And as Alfvén got obsessed with resonances in the Saturnian rings and other stuff, he did not keep up anymore with modern investigations on the phenomenon of magnetic field topology reconfiguration. If it would have interested him, he would have followed it, and he would most likely have seen that indeed the topology of the magnetic field changes in such a way that induction and double layers cannot account for. (and there we go again starting at the point 1 of the discussion)

Michael Mozina said:
Why do you continue to promote what Alfven referred to as pseudoscience?

Because it is being observed in space and measured by a multitude of satellites, not in the least the Cluster satellites, that for the first time could measure at 4 points simultaneously. And it is observed in controlled experiments in the laboratory. I am sure Birkeland would have loved to play at the LAPD.

Get to the present, MM, science did not stop after Alfven published his last plasma paper in the late 1980s.

tusenfem · Jul 18, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
As tsenfem has noted, Alfven's model of a loop carried current throughout the loop. It would "light up" everywhere, including under the photosphere in Alfven's model.

That is not what I would say, it would only light up where it can light up, e.g. if there is a pinch at the top of the loop (increasing density and heating up, therefore radiating more). As we don't know the closing path of the currents under the photosphere, there is no reason whatsoever to *ASSUME* that they would be radiating under the photosphere.

And then ofcourse there is the question to you: Is it really the currents that are radiating? Naturally, the answer is ...... (we'll leave that for now, see if you have a clue).

Michael Mozina said:
I personally prefer Birkeland's model, but the physics related to MHD theory applies to either a plasma or solid surface model.

You *REALLY* got to be kidding here, RIGHT?????? the physics of MHD holds for solid state too?

Michael Mozina said:
The later item I cited will demonstrate that matter is moving UP AND AWAY from the photosphere during the flare. If the flare originated above the photosphere, that would not happen and the direction of particle flow would be down, not up.

wow during a flare stuff moves up and away from the photosphere and it cannot happen above the photosphere? You are getting funnier and funnier.

Apparently you have no idea about plasma physics and about solar flares.

tusenfem · Jul 18, 2009

Reality Check said:
Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

Well you cannot control the sun, RC, so what you measure may as well be green cheese (oops, no that is the Moon, probably an solar eclipse, sorry!). These peeps are making measurements from an uncontrollable experiment, so, you cannot trust that result. The only real controlled sun experiments are those that show that there is a solid iron surface.

brantc · Jul 19, 2009

Reality Check said:
Hi MM. In reference to a statment that the Sun's photosphere emits a nearly black body spectrum you stated:

First asked 18 July 2009
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K (i.e. characteristic of matter at 5777 K )?

Also you can remove the "perhaps". The nearly nearly black body spectrum is actually measured.

Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface).

Plasma emits lines only with the line broadening as the pressure increases.

However solid matter will emit a blackbody spectrum. And considering the UV hump at the end of the solar spectrum that is an anomaly, I might say the sun is a solid electrode arc lamp. But of course that cant be. :jaw-dropp

And there is no explanation forthcoming from anyone for this feature. That same UV feature is seen in an arc lamp spectrum and is actually the best match.
Arc spectrum.
http://www.mole.com/aboutus/history/images/smpte/1943-06_fig-13.jpg

Tim Thompson · Jul 19, 2009

Plasma Emits Blackbody

brantc said:
Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface). Plasma emits lines only with the line broadening as the pressure increases.

Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

Reality Check · Jul 19, 2009

Outstanding questions for Micheal Mozina

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
(first asked 23rd June 2009).

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
(first asked 6th July 2009).

A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
(first asked 6th July 2009).

From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
(asked 7th July 2009)

Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
(first asked 7th July 2009).

Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
(first asked 8 July 2009).
Also see this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.

Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
(first asked 10 July 2009).

Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
(first asked 10 July 2009)

More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Formation of the iron surface
(First asked 13 July 2009)

How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009

Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
(First asked 13 July 2009)

Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009

Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.

Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
First asked 14 July 2009

Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).

Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
First asked 14 July 2009
MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.

What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
First asked 17 July 2009

What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
(MM states that it is not the photosphere)
First asked 18 July 2009

Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
First asked 18 July 2009

Michael Mozina · Jul 19, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

This sounds like one of those mythical claims that cannot be demonstrated in a lab. Which experiment would you like to cite that demonstrates that a mostly hydrogen and helium plasma, with the density of the photosphere shows that these elements at this density and temperature have the ability to act like a 'black body'? I think you're making this up.

Michael Mozina · Jul 19, 2009

Reality Check said:
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

The perpetual dark matter question:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

I can't even believe that you have *COMPLETELY* ignored my answers to such questions. You're quite a trip.

Michael Mozina · Jul 19, 2009

brantc said:
Hot decreasing density gas balls dont emit blackbody except by the mechanism hypothesized by mainstream(many collisions to the surface).

That complaint is particularly true at the density and with the elemental compositions they claim for the photosphere. There is no way in hell it's going to act like a "black body" at these extremely light densities, with these extremely light materials. I suggest we both continue to press them for some physical evidence of this claim until they either retract the claim or provide physical evidence to support that claim.

Michael Mozina · Jul 19, 2009

GeeMack said:
After all, a running difference image is just a graphical representation of a series of very simple mathematical computations.

That is a perfect example of your ignorance. It's not a "simple" image and the photons in the RD image are directly related to solar activities, not some stupid bar graph. Get over the notion that this is a "bar graph" or some "pie chart". You're only making yourself look ridiculous and ignorant. It is not a "graph" of any sort. It is an *IMAGE* of solar activity, with some math applied to that image. As long as you remain *INCAPABLE* of picking out "flying stuff", you only make yourself look ignorant. Everyone else seems to be able to pick out "things" in the image except you. Why is that?

Reality Check · Jul 19, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I can't even believe that you have *COMPLETELY* ignored my answers to such questions. You're quite a trip.

You said that you think that these is more ordinary matter. That is an opinion.
You *COMPLETELY* failed to present any evidence for this.

It is not more massive stars since

Astonomers are fairy good at measuring their mass.
Dark matter in galactic clusters is measured to be spheriaclly distributed and present between galaxies (no stars).

Where is this normal mass that astronomers have somehow missed?

As for the rest of the questions: I mentioned a couple of things that you have said. Give me links to the actual official MM answers to the questions.

ETA
You imply that you have answered every question so what was the number you gave me for How much is "mostly neon" MM? First asked 13 July 2009

Reality Check · Jul 19, 2009

How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light

First asked 19 July 2009
You have stated that your neon surface of the Sun (the photosphere?) emits white light. You want that surface to be "mostly neon" to support the mass separation in the Sun and so allow your iron thermodynamically impossible surface/crust to exist.
Neon by itself emits reddish orange light.

What is the mixture of gases in the "mostly neon" surface that allows it to emit the observed white light of the Sun?

Argon happens to emit blue light. So you could add that and hope there is not more argon than neon since that would invalidate your Iron Sun idea.

GeeMack · Jul 19, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
That is a perfect example of your ignorance. It's not a "simple" image and the photons in the RD image are directly related to solar activities, not some stupid bar graph. Get over the notion that this is a "bar graph" or some "pie chart". You're only making yourself look ridiculous and ignorant. It is not a "graph" of any sort. It is an *IMAGE* of solar activity, with some math applied to that image. As long as you remain *INCAPABLE* of picking out "flying stuff", you only make yourself look ignorant. Everyone else seems to be able to pick out "things" in the image except you. Why is that?

There are no "things" in that difference graph except a bunch of pixels of course, each one representing the difference in value between the corresponding pixels in a pair of sequential source images. Everyone else seems to accept my explanation that the "things" we see in running difference graphs are pixels. Why is that? Of course you've never ventured to explain why each pixel is the shade that it is. Why is that? I've offered clear and concise explanations, none of which you've even attempted to refute with any more than your usual unsupported crybaby temper tantrums declaring that they're wrong. Why is that? And the good folks at LMSAL say I'm right and you're wrong. Why is that?

And where is that experiment you say you have that shows how you can see over 4000 kilometers through an opaque plasma by looking at a difference graph made using data obtained thousands of kilometers above that opaque plasma, done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically sound, physically consistent, objective such that other people repeating the experiment come to the same conclusion you've reached? You've ignored this question a couple dozen times now. Why is that?

brantc · Jul 19, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Not true. Anything with a sufficiently high optical depth will emit temperature dependent black body radiation. There may be line emission or absorption superimposed on the blackbody emission, depending on the specific circumstances.

I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.
Otherwise you get "absorption" and emission lines.

Some galaxy spectrums. I know that the lines are superimposed on the lower spectrum but it still is not blackbody.
http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/nicole/teaching/ASTR505/lectures/lecture26/slide01.html

Crab Nebula spectrum.
http://www.narrowbandimaging.com/crab_spectrum_page.htm

UV/Optical energy distributions.
http://www.ias.u-psud.fr/dsigale/ecole_herschel/TALKS/jWalcher1.pdf

Ir galaxy spectra.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0811/0811.1533v1.pdf

Not even the CMB is a true theoretical BB!! Its amazing how good it is in the reports. Its too good. It only got that way from assumptions during processing. After reading this paper its easy to see how screwed up the whole "CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang" argument is.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

edd · Jul 19, 2009

brantc said:
I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.

How much optical depth there is is not solely dependent on the density. Every plasma has some optical depth or another - it's not something that only arises as you compress a plasma as you imply. It's simply that for many systems the optical depth scale is much greater than the physical scale of the object, so you never get to optical depths of order 1 or greater.

Not even the CMB is a true theoretical BB!! Its amazing how good it is in the reports. Its too good. It only got that way from assumptions during processing. After reading this paper its easy to see how screwed up the whole "CMB is the remnant of the Big Bang" argument is.
COBE: A Radiological Analysis
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

That's a mildly giggle-worthy paper. All the CMB anisotropies from COBE were thanks to water on the Earth?? Might be plausible given COBE was in a 900km orbit but since all the anisotropies we're studying now were measured by WMAP which is at L2, which is 1,500,000 km further, how can that explanation possibly make the slightest sense? There's a bit of a difference in angle subtended by Earth at 900km and 1.5 million.

Reality Check · Jul 19, 2009

brantc said:
I will say it again. A plasma of a particular density of a particular ion will only emit lines no matter how "deep" it is. Only when you start to compress the plasma do you get the interactions that produce a blackbody spectrum and the property know as "optical depth" that absorbs the full spectrum.
Otherwise you get "absorption" and emission lines.

The photosphere seems to be a "plasma of a particular density of a particular ion" (H-). It is measured to produce a nearly black body spectrum.
Why is it not all "absorption" or emission lines?
Why is the shape close to that of a black body?

The answer is easy - The photosphere has a temerature of ~6000K. That means that there is H2, H, H- and a lot of free electrons in the plasma. The free electrons will absorb and emit light at most wavelengths. This ialmost a balck body. Thus you get nearly a black body spectrum.

Then there is limb darkening. This shows that the photosphere has optical depth.

Dancing David · Jul 19, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
This sounds like one of those mythical claims that cannot be demonstrated in a lab. Which experiment would you like to cite that demonstrates that a mostly hydrogen and helium plasma, with the density of the photosphere shows that these elements at this density and temperature have the ability to act like a 'black body'? I think you're making this up.

Hi MM!

How about you show us the lab results for
1. Electron towing in an equal mix of electrons and protons to speeds seen in the solar wind?
2. Your electron refrigeration model, where electron flow keeps the iron shell from being heated by a higher radiating layer?
3. Your model for electrons coming off the iron shell in high enough numbers for #2 without heating the iron shell to melting/vaporization?

Electric universe theories here.

Muse

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing